3 ms·

Most people using stone grinding wheels throughout history has the same issue, from the beginning of farming up until a couple hundred years ago in Europe say.

Most people using stone grinding wheels throughout history has the same issue, from the beginning of farming up until a couple hundred years ago in Europe say. Archeologists use the amount of wear on a skeletons teeth to determine their age quite accurately.

azernik 9y ago
This is also part of why white bread was historically considered healthier - removing the wheat germ and bran kind of faked the look of stone-grain-free bread.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  Would you happen to have a reference on that?
  - wahern 9y ago
    A quick Google Books search found, Tosefta Berachot: Translated Into English with a Commentary https://books.google.com/books?id=ronqNAPipaEC&pg=PA189
    - wahern 9y ago
      Ah, an even better reference, from 1906, which also mentions teeth. Lieut.-Colonel Allan Cunningham desired to contrast the highly scientific process of grinding in use at the present day in all civilised counties with the unscientific process of grinding on a very large scale amongst the huge population of North-West India, which was essentially a wheat-eating population. The wheat was ground there in hand stone mills; the grinding was coarse, and separation of the bran very imperfect, there being a good deal of bran in the so-called flour. The bread was unleavened bread, whereas the bread eaten in this country was leavened bread, which made in immense difference in its effect on the constitution. The native flour was simply kneaded with water, and quickly heated over a griddle. With the addition of a little milk, butter, and salt, that was the staple food of the population. The effect of the diet was that the population were inferior on the whole in physique to Europeans, but it must remembered that they did not have a varied diet. The people had extremely beautiful teeth which they carefully cleaned. One very curious effect, which was always ascribed to the eating of the native ground what, was that the natives were extraordinarily subject to stone, even little children frequently having bigs stones in the bladder. Journal of the Society of Arts, December 21, 1906. https://books.google.com/books?id=DfpFAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA127
    - dredmorbius 9y ago
      Thank you!
Aron 9y ago
My ancestors threw off the archaelogists by only dining on the soft heated innards of dead animals. Their teeth were a pointed exercise in falsification.

azernik 9y ago

This is also part of why white bread was historically considered healthier - removing the wheat germ and bran kind of faked the look of stone-grain-free bread.

dredmorbius 9y ago
Would you happen to have a reference on that?
- wahern 9y ago
  A quick Google Books search found, Tosefta Berachot: Translated Into English with a Commentary https://books.google.com/books?id=ronqNAPipaEC&pg=PA189
  - wahern 9y ago
    Ah, an even better reference, from 1906, which also mentions teeth. Lieut.-Colonel Allan Cunningham desired to contrast the highly scientific process of grinding in use at the present day in all civilised counties with the unscientific process of grinding on a very large scale amongst the huge population of North-West India, which was essentially a wheat-eating population. The wheat was ground there in hand stone mills; the grinding was coarse, and separation of the bran very imperfect, there being a good deal of bran in the so-called flour. The bread was unleavened bread, whereas the bread eaten in this country was leavened bread, which made in immense difference in its effect on the constitution. The native flour was simply kneaded with water, and quickly heated over a griddle. With the addition of a little milk, butter, and salt, that was the staple food of the population. The effect of the diet was that the population were inferior on the whole in physique to Europeans, but it must remembered that they did not have a varied diet. The people had extremely beautiful teeth which they carefully cleaned. One very curious effect, which was always ascribed to the eating of the native ground what, was that the natives were extraordinarily subject to stone, even little children frequently having bigs stones in the bladder. Journal of the Society of Arts, December 21, 1906. https://books.google.com/books?id=DfpFAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA127
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    Thank you!

Aron 9y ago

My ancestors threw off the archaelogists by only dining on the soft heated innards of dead animals. Their teeth were a pointed exercise in falsification.